CDZ Liberal/Conservative Labels Miss the Point

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That is, the idea that "we" are in charge of ourselves....

dear, liberals want 100% not to be in charge of themselves, but rather to let rich people be in charge by providing an ever growing list of welfare entitlements. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So much for this thread... Trolls take another one.

translation: I lost the debate so I'm leaving

 

[Pogo]

So much for this thread... Trolls take another one.

translation: I lost the debate so I'm leaving

Best idea you ever had.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So much for this thread... Trolls take another one.

translation: I lost the debate so I'm leaving

Best idea you ever had.

a liberal proves the point by debating with cartoons!

 

[Ellipsis]

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I have to agree with that, at least to some extent. My pet issue being gun ownership, when I can use it is governed by the legal standard "reasonable fear".

On taxes, I just don't like theft, which is what a tax is. I certanly don't want more of my income stolen to pay for things people should be paying for themselves, like birth control.

On marriage, I don't feel that marriage vows are respected, and the divorce rate would validate that feeling.

 

[Ellipsis]

Interesting the way this discussion has come around full circle, exemplifying my conclusion that "never the twain shall meet."

If the thread hasn't been Godwined yet then we must continue on.

 

[PratchettFan]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

Which side is fighting the good fight for restoring the right to free association? Liberals favor oppression, conservatives favor human rights.

Nonsense. Marriage equality - conservatives oppose. Abortion rights - conservatives oppose. Legalization of drugs - conservatives oppose. Conservatives, like liberals, are for the human rights they want - not the human rights of other people. That isn't a desire for freedom, it's a desire for entitlement. Freedom means you get to do what you want to do whether I approve or not, and that is not the position of conservatives.

 

[PratchettFan]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

Would you provide one example wherein the recognition, respect, defense and adherence to the law of nature that govern human behavior has ever failed anyone?

I ask because the truth is that such is incapable of failure... it simply is not possible. So imagine my surprise where you were to prove it otherwise by showing valid examples of a failure which cannot exist.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is the "law of nature"?

 

[Ellipsis]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is the "law of nature"?

Law of Nature, by definition is not codified. There can be no list of Natural Laws because the very act of writing them down turns them into Posative Law and no longer Natural Law.

A group of people have to basicaly agree on a vague set ideas and that's Natural Law.

Natural Laws are whatever a group of people say they are. The idea of common decency and what exactly is and is not decent, for example. Natural Laws very from group to group and change constantly; at best you could track a common theme but never specifics.

 

[PratchettFan]

. Both philosophies are emotionally driven and based in fantasy.

what? according to our most ingenious thinkers: Aristotle and Jefferson, conservatism is based in cold hard ingenius logic. Yes, they support it emotionally as any human being would and intellectually too.

Now do you follow?

Liberalism is based in pure marxist ignorance so is nothing but emotion and ignorance.

Oh, I follow. It's bullshit. The fantasy that both philosophies are built upon is that human beings will stop acting like human beings if we just impose the right political philosophy. Any political philosophy which does not first consider the nature of human beings and adapt itself to that is a pointless exercise in intellectual masturbation.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have no idea what you are talking about. What exactly is the "law of nature"?

Law of Nature, by definition is not codified. There can be no list of Natural Laws because the very act of writing them down turns them into Posative Law and no longer Natural Law.

A group of people have to basicaly agree on a vague set ideas and that's Natural Law.

Natural Laws are whatever a group of people say they are. The idea of common decency and what exactly is and is not decent, for example. Natural Laws very from group to group and change constantly; at best you could track a common theme but never specifics.

Ah.... freedom as established by the mob. You think that works?

 

[midcan5]

1. The thread OP is pure baloney, each of us is liberal and conservative and neurology demonstrates today that the left right dichotomy was wrong. Brain injuries demonstrate the resilience and complexity of the mind. But there are personality differences and they are not an 'either or' diagram. The author confuses political thinking with mental capacities and abilities and leaves out life experiences, including both historical time and historical location. Consider that when I grew up no one labeled themselves conservative as they saw it as backward.

"The rise of conservative politics in postwar America is one of the great puzzles of American political history. For much of the period that followed the end of World War II, conservative ideas about the primacy of the free market, and the dangers of too-powerful labor unions, government regulation, and an activist, interventionist state seemed to have been thoroughly rejected by most intellectual and political elites. Scholars and politicians alike dismissed those who adhered to such faiths as a "radical right," for whom to quote the Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter politics "becomes an arena into which the wildest fancies are projected, the most paranoid suspicions, the most absurd superstitions, the most bizarre apocalyptic fantasies." How, then, did such ideas move from their marginal position in the middle years of the twentieth century to become the reigning politics of the country by the century's end?" Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

"Historians and social critics often explain the successes of conservative politics by pointing to the backlash against the victories of the social movements of the 1960s, the cultural reaction against the radicals who fought for civil rights, feminism, and gay and lesbian rights and who protested against the Vietnam War. The 1970s defection of white working class people alienated and frightened by the liberal program shifted the politics of the country far to the right. The argument is that in the days before the onset of the culture wars, a "liberal consensus" dominated American politics, especially around economics." Kim Phillips-Fein ('Invisible Hands')

 

[PratchettFan]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

well now that seems 100% mistaken given the conservatives sign the pledge and liberals don't

What pledge?

 

[PratchettFan]

The engine of all political positions is emotion. The argument that conservatives are driven by reason is absurd.

I have to agree with that, at least to some extent. My pet issue being gun ownership, when I can use it is governed by the legal standard "reasonable fear".

On taxes, I just don't like theft, which is what a tax is. I certanly don't want more of my income stolen to pay for things people should be paying for themselves, like birth control.

On marriage, I don't feel that marriage vows are respected, and the divorce rate would validate that feeling.

My position on guns is if the government can't establish I am a danger, then it is none of their business. I draw the line on weapons which are inherently dangerous. I don't think I should be able to have a 500 pound bomb in my garage, but that is the nature of compromise.

Taxes are not theft. Taking something and refusing to pay for it is theft. So if you use the roads, enjoy freedom won by our military, expect your day in court, want firefighters to extinguish your house or come get you if you slice your leg off, then you need to pay your share of that cost. That does not mean you decide how the money will be spent, just like owning some shares in AT&T doesn't let you tell the CEO how to do his job. If you don't like that deal, you're not a serf tied to the land.

As to marriage, what agreements competent adults wish to enter into is their concern. If the government wants to be involved in that process, then they should do so from a neutral position. If you think vows should be respected, then you should certainly respect them. But whether you do or not is none of my business.

 

[Pogo]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

Which side is fighting the good fight for restoring the right to free association? Liberals favor oppression, conservatives favor human rights.

Nonsense. Marriage equality - conservatives oppose. Abortion rights - conservatives oppose. Legalization of drugs - conservatives oppose. Conservatives, like liberals, are for the human rights they want - not the human rights of other people. That isn't a desire for freedom, it's a desire for entitlement. Freedom means you get to do what you want to do whether I approve or not, and that is not the position of conservatives.

Qualified agreement, the qualification being that such examples do not represent true Conservatism, just as activist thrusts like Affirmative Action and gun control laws do not represent true Liberalism. They represent those who wrap themselves in those flags (or are portrayed as such by their opponents), but falsely so.

 

[PratchettFan]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

Which side is fighting the good fight for restoring the right to free association? Liberals favor oppression, conservatives favor human rights.

Nonsense. Marriage equality - conservatives oppose. Abortion rights - conservatives oppose. Legalization of drugs - conservatives oppose. Conservatives, like liberals, are for the human rights they want - not the human rights of other people. That isn't a desire for freedom, it's a desire for entitlement. Freedom means you get to do what you want to do whether I approve or not, and that is not the position of conservatives.

Qualified agreement, the qualification being that such examples do not represent true Conservatism, just as activist thrusts like Affirmative Action and gun control laws do not represent true Liberalism. They represent those who wrap themselves in those flags (or are portrayed as such by their opponents), but falsely so.

Unqualified agreement. The conservatives of today are not the conservatives of my time. I have been a conservative my entire life, but I am a conservative in the same vein as Goldwater and Buckley. Such people are referred to as RHINOs by the current crop. Goldwater warned us what would happen if we brought in the religious right, and he was right.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Unqualified agreement. The conservatives of today are not the conservatives of my time. I have been a conservative my entire life, but I am a conservative in the same vein as Goldwater and Buckley. Such people are referred to as RHINOs by the current crop. Goldwater warned us what would happen if we brought in the religious right, and he was right.

I have been a liberal my entire life and would say the same thing about liberalism. It just sickens me to see what so much of the left has become.

The thing is, most of those liberal ideals from the 60s and 70s have been achieved to at least some degree, so the trick, now, is to conserve them. It is a bit of a paradox, perhaps, but western culture in general is liberal, and is now under attack from an extraordinarily illiberal culture, and unless the left in a general sense starts to figure out that paradox, they will doom us all.

As the right has gone coo coo with religious zealots, the left has gone coo coo with multiculturalist useful idiots, and so instead of viewing the game as involving some great battle between left and right, I see it more in terms of both intolerant ends against the middle.

 

[PratchettFan]

Unqualified agreement. The conservatives of today are not the conservatives of my time. I have been a conservative my entire life, but I am a conservative in the same vein as Goldwater and Buckley. Such people are referred to as RHINOs by the current crop. Goldwater warned us what would happen if we brought in the religious right, and he was right.

I have been a liberal my entire life and would say the same thing about liberalism. It just sickens me to see what so much of the left has become.

The thing is, most of those liberal ideals from the 60s and 70s have been achieved to at least some degree, so the trick, now, is to conserve them. It is a bit of a paradox, perhaps, but western culture in general is liberal, and is now under attack from an extraordinarily illiberal culture, and unless the left in a general sense starts to figure out that paradox, they will doom us all.

As the right has gone coo coo with religious zealots, the left has gone coo coo with multiculturalist useful idiots, and so instead of viewing the game as involving some great battle between left and right, I see it more in terms of both intolerant ends against the middle.

I agree. The problem is both sides are now seeing their point of view as the only possible answer. The reality is that neither side could effectively govern because humanity does not work that way. Entitlement systems are necessary, but will kill a society if done to excess. Free market is robust, but ultimately ends in feudalism if not controlled. Too much government is as destructive as too little, and both extremes of the spectrum have simply lost the ability to comprehend this. Perhaps it is better to say they never had the ability but the rest of us had the common sense not to pay them any attention.

 

[jwoodie]

1. The thread OP is pure baloney, each of us is liberal and conservative and neurology demonstrates today that the left right dichotomy was wrong. Brain injuries demonstrate the resilience and complexity of the mind. But there are personality differences and they are not an 'either or' diagram. The author confuses political thinking with mental capacities and abilities and leaves out life experiences, including both historical time and historical location. Consider that when I grew up no one labeled themselves conservative as they saw it as backward.

I will concede that there are plenty of ignoramuses out there who are neither liberal nor conservative. But I have never met a liberal (by today's definition) who does not ultimately resort to some variation of the good vs. evil argument to defend his or her position. You are correct that heredity and environment affect, if not cause, this personalization of political beliefs, but this fact remains. That you were brought up in an environment where conservatism was considered "backward" merely underscores this point.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As to freedom, that is nonsense. Conservatives are no more interested in freedom than liberals.

well now that seems 100% mistaken given the conservatives sign the pledge and liberals don't

What pledge?

see what we mean about liberalism being based in pure ignorance? Most Republicans sign Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. They also voted against the stimulus and Obamacare, have shut down the govt numerous times, and introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments, and are part of the tradition stated with Aristotle that freedom from govt is the best fom of govt..